pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.23224 · v1 · pith:EP3ALSINnew · submitted 2026-06-22 · ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph

Multi-objective Bayesian optimisation of a double-layer target for quasi-monoenergetic TNSA protons

Chengqi-Zhang , Yang He , Mamat Ali Bake , Bai-Song Xie This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 06:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph
keywords Bayesian optimizationTNSAproton accelerationdouble-layer targetquasi-monoenergetic protonsPareto frontlaser-plasma interaction
0
0 comments X

The pith

Bayesian optimization locates double-layer target parameters for 64-71 MeV quasi-monoenergetic TNSA protons.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper applies multi-objective Bayesian optimisation across six parameters of a carbon-hydrogen double-layer target for target-normal-sheath proton acceleration. Eighty two-dimensional EPOCH simulations score each proton spectrum by peak energy, charge fraction inside a ten-percent energy window, and total charge inside that window. The resulting Pareto set clusters near laser amplitude thirty, pulse duration forty-five femtoseconds, carbon thickness zero-point-three micrometres, hydrogen thickness thirty nanometres and radius zero-point-one-five micrometres, producing peaks of sixty-four to seventy-one mega-electronvolts. A selected intermediate-density case verified in three dimensions retains the quasi-monoenergetic peak, although peak energy falls to thirty-four mega-electronvolts because the rear sheath field decays earlier.

Core claim

Multi-objective Bayesian optimisation of laser amplitude, pulse duration, carbon-layer thickness, hydrogen-layer density, thickness and radius identifies Pareto-optimal double-layer targets that deliver proton peak energies of 64-71 MeV in two-dimensional simulations; a three-dimensional run of an intermediate-density member of this set yields a lower peak of 34.1 MeV but preserves the quasi-monoenergetic feature with relative bandwidth narrowed to 7 percent.

What carries the argument

Multi-objective Bayesian optimisation that scores each spectrum on three quantities: peak energy, charge fraction inside a ±10 percent window, and charge inside that window.

If this is right

  • Increasing hydrogen-layer density along the optimal branch raises in-window charge while widening bandwidth.
  • The small rear-layer radius keeps the proton source inside the flat central region of the transverse sheath field.
  • Three-dimensional effects reduce peak energy yet narrow the relative bandwidth compared with the two-dimensional result.
  • The optimisation campaign maps explicit trade-offs among peak energy, charge fraction and total charge without exhaustive sampling.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same optimisation workflow could be applied to other target geometries or acceleration mechanisms to locate high-quality operating points.
  • Experimental campaigns at facilities with comparable laser parameters could test whether the identified settings produce the predicted spectra.
  • Incorporating additional objectives such as beam divergence or emittance into the scoring would refine the Pareto front for practical applications.

Load-bearing premise

Two-dimensional simulations with the chosen scoring functions are sufficient to identify the physically relevant optima even though three-dimensional verification produces substantially lower peak energy.

What would settle it

Fabricating a target with the reported optimal parameters and measuring its proton spectrum in a real laser experiment would show whether the 64-71 MeV quasi-monoenergetic peak appears at the energies predicted by the two-dimensional runs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.23224 by Bai-Song Xie, Chengqi-Zhang, Mamat Ali Bake, Yang He.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Multi-objective Bayesian-optimisation workflow for the double-layer target, shown as four repeated steps. Step 1: the six-dimensional design vector. Step 2: each parameter set is evaluated with a 2D PIC simulation of a C6+ substrate and a finite-radius rear H+ layer, sketched with its fixed quantities. Step 3: the proton spectrum is scored by three maximised objectives, the peak energy Epeak, the in-window… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Representative proton spectra from the 6D multi-objective Bayesian-optimisation campaign. Twelve completed evaluations are selected from the full record after sorting by increasing spectral purity. The dominated hypervolume summarises the whole nondominated set with a single number. In the three-objective space it is the volume that the nondominated points dominate above the reference point, and it grows a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Convergence of the optimisation. The cumulative dominated hypervolume is plotted as a percentage of its final value over the 80 PIC evaluations. The three objectives are Epeak, purity and log10 Qin. The nondominated solutions, displayed in the three-dimensional objective space and in three two-dimensional projections in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Three-objective Pareto front and two-dimensional projections. (a) Pareto-optimal evaluations in the objective space of peak energy Epeak, spectral purity and peak-window charge log10 Qin. Panels (b)–(d) show the corresponding two-dimensional projections. Grey points denote dominated evaluations and coloured points denote Pareto-optimal parameter sets; the colour scale encodes the third objective not shown … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Gaussian-process response maps over the six-dimensional design space. Three surrogate-model corner plots show the predicted dependence of (a) peak energy Epeak, (b) spectral purity and (c) log10 Qin on the six inputs a0, τ, L1, N2, L2 and rp. For each objective, a Mat´ern-5/2 Gaussian process is fitted to the 80 completed evaluations. Diagonal panels show one-dimensional main effects, while lower-triangle … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Source-size dependence of the rear accelerating field for evaluation 50. (a) Transverse profile of the longitudinal field Ex across the proton layer at the sheath-formation time (t ≈ 100 fs); (b) Peak-to-valley variation of Ex across a source of radius r, increasing from about 7% at rp = 0.15 µm to about 30% at rp = 1.5 µm. in which only a source this small fits within the central plateau of the rear sheat… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (c), the peak axial rear-sheath field in 3D is lower and decays earlier than in 2D, and panel (d) shows the proton peak energy saturating correspondingly earlier, whereas the 2D peak continues to gain energy for a longer time. The shorter acceleration window reduces the time over which protons at different positions accumulate different energies, consistent with the smaller late-time bandwidth in the 3D sp… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We carry out a six-parameter multi-objective Bayesian optimisation of a carbon--hydrogen double-layer target for target-normal-sheath proton acceleration. The campaign consists of 80 two-dimensional EPOCH simulations with the laser amplitude $a_0$, pulse duration $\tau$, carbon-layer thickness $L_1$, hydrogen-layer density $N_2$, hydrogen-layer thickness $L_2$ and hydrogen-layer radius $r_p$ as input variables. Each final proton spectrum is scored by the peak energy, the charge fraction inside a $\pm10\%$ peak-energy window and the charge in that window. Among the Pareto-set evaluations, the cases with peak energies between 64 and 71 MeV occur near $a_0=30$, $\tau=45$ fs, $L_1=0.3\,\mu{\rm m}$, $L_2=30$ nm and $r_p=0.15\,\mu{\rm m}$. Along this branch, increasing $N_2$ raises the in-window charge and increases the bandwidth. The small rear-layer radius keeps the proton source within the flat central region of the transverse sheath field, where the accelerating field is nearly uniform. A 3D calculation is performed for the intermediate-density case $N_2=11.85\,n_c$, which balances bandwidth and in-window charge along this branch. The corresponding 2D spectrum has $E_{\rm peak}=67.4$ MeV and $\Delta E/E=18.8\%$, whereas the 3D spectrum has $E_{\rm peak}=34.1$ MeV and $\Delta E/E=7.0\%$. The lower 3D peak energy and narrower bandwidth are associated with an earlier decay of the rear-sheath field and an earlier saturation of the proton peak energy, and the quasi-monoenergetic peak is retained in 3D.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a six-parameter multi-objective Bayesian optimization of a carbon-hydrogen double-layer target for TNSA proton acceleration, based on 80 two-dimensional EPOCH PIC simulations. Each spectrum is scored on peak energy, charge fraction within a ±10% window, and absolute charge in the window. The Pareto set clusters near a0=30, τ=45 fs, L1=0.3 μm, L2=30 nm, rp=0.15 μm (with varying N2), producing 2D peak energies of 64–71 MeV. A single 3D verification at N2=11.85 nc yields E_peak=34.1 MeV and ΔE/E=7.0% while retaining a quasi-monoenergetic feature, attributed to earlier sheath decay.

Significance. If the identified parameter branch remains optimal once three-dimensional effects are fully accounted for, the work would supply concrete guidance for experimental TNSA designs aiming at higher-energy quasi-monoenergetic protons. The multi-objective Bayesian approach and the observation that a small rear-layer radius keeps protons in the uniform central sheath region constitute potentially useful methodological and physical insights for laser-plasma acceleration.

major comments (1)
  1. [3D verification paragraph] The 3D verification paragraph (and corresponding abstract statement): the single 3D run at N2=11.85 nc produces E_peak=34.1 MeV (roughly half the 2D value of 67.4 MeV) together with earlier rear-sheath decay and proton saturation. Because TNSA sheath evolution, transverse uniformity, and acceleration time are known to differ systematically between 2D and 3D, the Pareto-optimal branch located in 2D is not guaranteed to remain optimal in 3D; the retention of a narrower quasi-monoenergetic peak does not establish that the reported parameters maximize the three scoring functions under physically relevant conditions.
minor comments (2)
  1. No convergence diagnostics, grid-resolution studies, or uncertainty quantification on the optimized parameters or scoring functions are provided, which would strengthen in the 80-run campaign.
  2. The manuscript would benefit from an explicit statement of the limitations of 2D optimization for TNSA and a clearer discussion of how the reported 2D Pareto front should be interpreted for experimental planning.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for highlighting the limitations in interpreting the single 3D verification run. We address the comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to avoid any implication of 3D optimality.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The 3D verification paragraph (and corresponding abstract statement): the single 3D run at N2=11.85 nc produces E_peak=34.1 MeV (roughly half the 2D value of 67.4 MeV) together with earlier rear-sheath decay and proton saturation. Because TNSA sheath evolution, transverse uniformity, and acceleration time are known to differ systematically between 2D and 3D, the Pareto-optimal branch located in 2D is not guaranteed to remain optimal in 3D; the retention of a narrower quasi-monoenergetic peak does not establish that the reported parameters maximize the three scoring functions under physically relevant conditions.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that a single 3D simulation does not demonstrate optimality of the identified parameter branch under 3D conditions, nor does it establish that these parameters maximize the three objective functions in 3D. The 2D campaign was performed due to the prohibitive computational cost of a comparable 3D multi-objective optimization. The 3D run was included solely to test whether the quasi-monoenergetic spectral feature survives the transition to 3D geometry, which it does. We will revise both the abstract and the 3D verification paragraph to state explicitly that the multi-objective optimization and Pareto front were obtained in 2D, that the 3D case provides verification of feature retention (with the observed reduction in peak energy and bandwidth), and that full confirmation of optimality in 3D would require additional 3D simulations. These changes will be made in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: all reported quantities are direct EPOCH simulation outputs with no self-referential derivations or fitted inputs renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The paper performs 80 two-dimensional EPOCH particle-in-cell runs, scores each spectrum by three explicit functions (peak energy, charge fraction in ±10% window, charge in window), and reports the resulting Pareto front and one 3D verification run. Peak energies (64–71 MeV in 2D, 34.1 MeV in 3D), bandwidths, and charge values are raw simulation outputs; none are obtained by solving equations that embed the target quantities or by fitting parameters to a subset and then relabeling the fit as a prediction. No self-citations appear in the provided text as load-bearing premises, no uniqueness theorems are invoked, and no ansatz is smuggled via prior work. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks (the EPOCH code itself).

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that the EPOCH code and the chosen multi-objective scoring functions faithfully represent the relevant TNSA physics; no free parameters are fitted to data and no new entities are postulated.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption EPOCH particle-in-cell code accurately models the sheath-field evolution and proton acceleration in both 2D and 3D geometries for the chosen target parameters
    All numerical results are generated inside this code; the 2D-to-3D discrepancy itself is interpreted within the same modeling framework.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5895 in / 1441 out tokens · 32087 ms · 2026-06-26T06:16:47.201953+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references

  1. [1]

    R. A. Snavely, M. H. Key, S. P. Hatchett, T. E. Cowan, M. Roth, T. W. Phillips, M. A. Stoyer, E. A. Henry, T. C. Sangster, M. S. Singh, S. C. Wilks, A. MacKinnon, A. Offenberger, D. M. Pennington, K. Yasuike, A. B. Langdon, B. F. Lasinski, J. Johnson, M. D. Perry, and E. M. Campbell. Intense high-energy proton beams from petawatt-laser irradiation of soli...

    2000

  2. [2]

    Hatchett, Curtis G

    Stephen P. Hatchett, Curtis G. Brown, Thomas E. Cowan, Eugene A. Henry, Joy S. Johnson, Michael H. Key, Jeffrey A. Koch, A. Bruce Langdon, Barbara F. Lasinski, Richard W. Lee, Andrew J. Mackinnon, Deanna M. Pennington, Michael D. Perry, Thomas W. Phillips, Markus Roth, T. Craig Sangster, Mike S. Singh, Richard A. Snavely, Mark A. Stoyer, Scott C. Wilks, a...

    2076

  3. [3]

    Borghesi, D

    M. Borghesi, D. H. Campbell, A. Schiavi, M. G. Haines, O. Willi, A. J. MacKinnon, P. Patel, L. A. Gizzi, M. Galimberti, R. J. Clarke, F. Pegoraro, H. Ruhl, and S. Bulanov. Electric field detection in laser-plasma interaction experiments via the proton imaging technique.Physics of Plasmas, 9(5):2214–2220, 2002

    2002

  4. [4]

    Patel, A

    P. Patel, A. Mackinnon, M. Key, T. Cowan, M. Foord, M. Allen, D. Price, H. Ruhl, P. Springer, and R. Stephens. Isochoric heating of solid-density matter with an ultrafast proton beam.Physical Review Letters, 91(12):125004, 2003

    2003

  5. [5]

    M. Roth, T. E. Cowan, M. H. Key, S. P. Hatchett, C. Brown, W. Fountain, J. Johnson, D. M. Pennington, R. A. Snavely, S. C. Wilks, K. Yasuike, H. Ruhl, F. Pegoraro, S. V. Bulanov, E. M. Campbell, M. D. Perry, and H. Powell. Fast ignition by intense laser-accelerated proton beams.Physical Review Letters, 86(3):436–439, 2001

    2001

  6. [6]

    S. V. Bulanov and V. S. Khoroshkov. Feasibility of using laser ion accelerators in proton therapy.Plasma Physics Reports, 28(5):453–456, 2002

    2002

  7. [7]

    What will it take for laser driven proton accelerators to be applied to tumor therapy?Physical Review Special Topics - Accelerators and Beams, 10(9):094801, 2007

    Ute Linz and Jose Alonso. What will it take for laser driven proton accelerators to be applied to tumor therapy?Physical Review Special Topics - Accelerators and Beams, 10(9):094801, 2007. 10

    2007

  8. [8]

    K. Zeil, M. Baumann, E. Beyreuther, T. Burris-Mog, T. E. Cowan, W. Enghardt, L. Karsch, S. D. Kraft, L. Laschinsky, J. Metzkes, D. Naumburger, M. Oppelt, C. Richter, R. Sauerbrey, M. Sch¨ urer, U. Schramm, and J. Pawelke. Dose-controlled irradiation of cancer cells with laser-accelerated proton pulses.Applied Physics B, 110(4):437–444, 2013

    2013

  9. [9]

    Flash radiotherapy: A promising new method for radiotherapy (review).Oncology Letters, 24(6):419, 2022

    Yinghao Lv, Yue Lv, Zhen Wang, Tian Lan, Xuping Feng, Hao Chen, Jiang Zhu, Xiao Ma, Jinpeng Du, Guimin Hou, Wenwei Liao, Kefei Yuan, and Hong Wu. Flash radiotherapy: A promising new method for radiotherapy (review).Oncology Letters, 24(6):419, 2022

    2022

  10. [10]

    Florian Kroll, Florian-Emanuel Brack, Constantin Bernert, Stefan Bock, Elisabeth Bodenstein, Kerstin Br¨ uchner, Thomas E. Cowan, Lennart Gaus, Ren´ e Gebhardt, Uwe Helbig, Leonhard Karsch, Thomas Kluge, Stephan Kraft, Mechthild Krause, Elisabeth Lessmann, Umar Masood, Sebastian Meister, Josefine Metzkes-Ng, Alexej Nossula, J¨ org Pawelke, Jens Pietzsch, ...

    2022

  11. [11]

    International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 2005

    International Atomic Energy Agency.Radiation Oncology Physics: A Handbook for Teachers and Students. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 2005

    2005

  12. [12]

    Cowan, Leonhard Karsch, Stephan Kraft, Leoni A

    Florian-Emanuel Brack, Florian Kroll, Lennart Gaus, Constantin Bernert, Elke Beyreuther, Thomas E. Cowan, Leonhard Karsch, Stephan Kraft, Leoni A. Kunz-Schughart, Elisabeth Lessmann, Josefine Metzkes-Ng, Lieselotte Obst-Huebl, J¨ org Pawelke, Martin Rehwald, Hans-Peter Schlenvoigt, Ulrich Schramm, Manfred Sobiella, Em´ ılia Rita Szab´ o, Tim Ziegler, and ...

    2020

  13. [13]

    Hegelich, S

    M. Hegelich, S. Karsch, G. Pretzler, D. Habs, K. Witte, W. Guenther, M. Allen, A. Blazevic, J. Fuchs, J. C. Gauthier, M. Geissel, P. Audebert, T. Cowan, and M. Roth. Mev ion jets from short-pulse-laser interaction with thin foils.Physical Review Letters, 89(8):085002, 2002

    2002

  14. [14]

    Schwoerer, S

    H. Schwoerer, S. Pfotenhauer, O. J¨ ackel, K.-U. Amthor, B. Liesfeld, W. Ziegler, R. Sauerbrey, K. W. D. Ledingham, and T. Esirkepov. Laser-plasma acceleration of quasi-monoenergetic protons from microstructured targets.Nature, 439(7075):445–448, 2006

    2006

  15. [15]

    Fonseca, Luis O

    Dan Haberberger, Sergei Tochitsky, Frederico Fiuza, Chao Gong, Ricardo A. Fonseca, Luis O. Silva, Warren B. Mori, and Chan Joshi. Collisionless shocks in laser-produced plasma generate monoenergetic high-energy proton beams.Nature Physics, 8(1):95–99, 2012

    2012

  16. [16]

    Pirozhkov

    Hiroyuki Daido, Mamiko Nishiuchi, and Alexander S. Pirozhkov. Review of laser-driven ion sources and their applications.Reports on Progress in Physics, 75(5):056401, 2012

    2012

  17. [17]

    Ion acceleration by superintense laser-plasma interaction.Reviews of Modern Physics, 85(2):751–793, 2013

    Andrea Macchi, Marco Borghesi, and Matteo Passoni. Ion acceleration by superintense laser-plasma interaction.Reviews of Modern Physics, 85(2):751–793, 2013

    2013

  18. [18]

    Esirkepov, M

    T. Esirkepov, M. Borghesi, S. V. Bulanov, G. Mourou, and T. Tajima. Highly efficient relativistic-ion generation in the laser-piston regime.Physical Review Letters, 92(17):175003, 2004

    2004

  19. [19]

    Fiuza, A

    F. Fiuza, A. Stockem, E. Boella, R. A. Fonseca, L. O. Silva, D. Haberberger, S. Tochitsky, C. Gong, W. B. Mori, and C. Joshi. Laser-driven shock acceleration of monoenergetic ion beams.Physical Review Letters, 109(21):215001, 2012

    2012

  20. [20]

    L. Yin, B. J. Albright, B. M. Hegelich, K. J. Bowers, K. A. Flippo, T. J. T. Kwan, and J. C. Fern´ andez. Monoenergetic and gev ion acceleration from the laser breakout afterburner using ultrathin targets.Physics of Plasmas, 14(5):056706, 2007

    2007

  21. [21]

    Bulanov, Timur Zh

    Tatsufumi Nakamura, Sergei V. Bulanov, Timur Zh. Esirkepov, and Masaki Kando. High-energy ions from near-critical density plasmas via magnetic vortex acceleration.Physical Review Letters, 105(13):135002, 2010

    2010

  22. [22]

    S. C. Wilks, A. B. Langdon, T. E. Cowan, M. Roth, M. Singh, S. Hatchett, M. H. Key, D. Pennington, A. MacKinnon, and R. A. Snavely. Energetic proton generation in ultra-intense laser-solid interactions.Physics of Plasmas, 8(2):542–549, 2001

    2001

  23. [23]

    P. Mora. Plasma expansion into a vacuum.Physical Review Letters, 90(18):185002, 2003. 11

    2003

  24. [24]

    Target normal sheath acceleration: Theory, comparison with experiments and future perspectives.New Journal of Physics, 12(4):045012, 2010

    Matteo Passoni, Luca Bertagna, and Alessandro Zani. Target normal sheath acceleration: Theory, comparison with experiments and future perspectives.New Journal of Physics, 12(4):045012, 2010

    2010

  25. [25]

    Multiphoton 3d lithography.Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 5:15, 2025

    Edvinas Skliutas, Greta Merkininkaite, Shoji Maruo, Wenxin Zhang, Wenyuan Chen, Weiting Deng, Julia Greer, Georg von Freymann, and Mangirdas Malinauskas. Multiphoton 3d lithography.Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 5:15, 2025

    2025

  26. [26]

    Liang Yang, Frederik Mayer, Uwe H. F. Bunz, Eva Blasco, and Martin Wegener. Multi-material multi-photon 3d laser micro- and nanoprinting.Light: Advanced Manufacturing, 2:1, 2021

    2021

  27. [27]

    Robinson, Pulickel M

    Xiewen Wen, Boyu Zhang, Weipeng Wang, Fan Ye, Shuai Yue, Hua Guo, Guanhui Gao, Yushun Zhao, Qiyi Fang, Christine Nguyen, Xiang Zhang, Jiming Bao, Jacob T. Robinson, Pulickel M. Ajayan, and Jun Lou. 3d-printed silica with nanoscale resolution.Nature Materials, 20(11):1506–1511, 2021

    2021

  28. [28]

    P. Mora. Thin-foil expansion into a vacuum.Physical Review E, 72(5):056401, 2005

    2005

  29. [29]

    Fuchs, P

    J. Fuchs, P. Antici, E. d’Humi` eres, E. Lefebvre, M. Borghesi, E. Brambrink, C. A. Cecchetti, M. Kaluza, V. Malka, M. Manclossi, S. Meyroneinc, P. Mora, J. Schreiber, T. Toncian, H. P´ epin, and P. Audebert. Laser-driven proton scaling laws and new paths towards energy increase.Nature Physics, 2(1):48–54, 2006

    2006

  30. [30]

    Robson, P

    L. Robson, P. T. Simpson, R. J. Clarke, K. W. D. Ledingham, F. Lindau, O. Lundh, T. McCanny, P. Mora, D. Neely, C.-G. Wahlstr¨ om, M. Zepf, and P. McKenna. Scaling of proton acceleration driven by petawatt-laser-plasma interactions.Nature Physics, 3(1):58–62, 2007

    2007

  31. [31]

    Wagner, O

    F. Wagner, O. Deppert, C. Brabetz, P. Fiala, A. Kleinschmidt, P. Poth, V. A. Schanz, A. Tebartz, B. Zielbauer, M. Roth, T. St¨ ohlker, and V. Bagnoud. Maximum proton energy above 85 mev from the relativistic interaction of laser pulses with micrometer thick ch 2 targets.Physical Review Letters, 116(20):205002, 2016

    2016

  32. [32]

    Higginson, R

    A. Higginson, R. J. Gray, M. King, R. J. Dance, S. D. R. Williamson, N. M. H. Butler, R. Wilson, R. Capdessus, C. Armstrong, J. S. Green, S. J. Hawkes, P. Martin, W. Q. Wei, S. R. Mirfayzi, X. H. Yuan, S. Kar, M. Borghesi, R. J. Clarke, D. Neely, and P. McKenna. Near-100 mev protons via a laser-driven transparency-enhanced hybrid acceleration scheme. Natu...

    2018

  33. [33]

    Malte Kaluza, J¨ org Schreiber, Markus I. K. Santala, Georg D. Tsakiris, Klaus Eidmann, J¨ urgen Meyer-ter Vehn, and Klaus J. Witte. Influence of the laser prepulse on proton acceleration in thin-foil experiments.Physical Review Letters, 93(4):045003, 2004

    2004

  34. [34]

    Laser ion acceleration using a solid target coupled with a low-density layer.Physical Review E, 85(3):036405, 2012

    Andrea Sgattoni, Pasquale Londrillo, Andrea Macchi, and Matteo Passoni. Laser ion acceleration using a solid target coupled with a low-density layer.Physical Review E, 85(3):036405, 2012

    2012

  35. [35]

    Passoni, A

    M. Passoni, A. Sgattoni, I. Prencipe, L. Fedeli, D. Dellasega, L. Cialfi, Il Woo Choi, I Jong Kim, K. A. Janulewicz, Hwang Woon Lee, Jae Hee Sung, Seong Ku Lee, and Chang Hee Nam. Toward high-energy laser-driven ion beams: Nanostructured double-layer targets.Physical Review Accelerators and Beams, 19(6):061301, 2016

    2016

  36. [36]

    J. H. Bin, W. J. Ma, H. Y. Wang, M. J. V. Streeter, C. Kreuzer, D. Kiefer, M. Yeung, S. Cousens, P. S. Foster, B. Dromey, X. Q. Yan, R. Ramis, J. Meyer-ter Vehn, M. Zepf, and J. Schreiber. Ion acceleration using relativistic pulse shaping in near-critical-density plasmas. Physical Review Letters, 115(6):064801, 2015

    2015

  37. [37]

    T. Zh. Esirkepov, S. V. Bulanov, K. Nishihara, T. Tajima, F. Pegoraro, V. S. Khoroshkov, K. Mima, H. Daido, Y. Kato, Y. Kitagawa, K. Nagai, and S. Sakabe. Proposed double-layer target for the generation of high-quality laser-accelerated ion beams.Physical Review Letters, 89(17):175003, 2002

    2002

  38. [38]

    Neely, P

    D. Neely, P. Foster, A. Robinson, F. Lindau, O. Lundh, A. Persson, C.-G. Wahlstr¨ om, and P. McKenna. Enhanced proton beams from ultrathin targets driven by high contrast laser pulses.Applied Physics Letters, 89(2):021502, 2006. 12

    2006

  39. [39]

    McKenna, D

    P. McKenna, D. C. Carroll, O. Lundh, F. N¨ urnberg, K. Markey, S. Bandyopadhyay, D. Batani, R. G. Evans, R. Jafer, S. Kar, D. Neely, D. Pepler, M. N. Quinn, R. Redaelli, M. Roth, C.-G. Wahlstr¨ om, X. H. Yuan, and M. Zepf. Effects of front surface plasma expansion on proton acceleration in ultraintense laser irradiation of foil targets.Laser and Particle ...

    2008

  40. [40]

    Jones, Matthias Schonlau, and William J

    Donald R. Jones, Matthias Schonlau, and William J. Welch. Efficient global optimization of expensive black-box functions.Journal of Global Optimization, 13(4):455–492, 1998

    1998

  41. [41]

    Carl Edward Rasmussen and Christopher K. I. Williams.Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2006

    2006

  42. [42]

    Jasper Snoek, Hugo Larochelle, and Ryan P. Adams. Practical bayesian optimization of machine learning algorithms. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 25, pages 2951–2959, 2012

    2012

  43. [43]

    Adams, and Nando de Freitas

    Bobak Shahriari, Kevin Swersky, Ziyu Wang, Ryan P. Adams, and Nando de Freitas. Taking the human out of the loop: A review of bayesian optimization.Proceedings of the IEEE, 104(1):148–175, 2016

    2016

  44. [44]

    Kakade, and Matthias Seeger

    Niranjan Srinivas, Andreas Krause, Sham M. Kakade, and Matthias Seeger. Gaussian process optimization in the bandit setting: No regret and experimental design. InProceedings of the 27th International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1015–1022, 2010

    2010

  45. [45]

    R. J. Shalloo, S. J. D. Dann, J.-N. Gruse, C. I. D. Underwood, A. F. Antoine, C. Arran, M. Backhouse, C. D. Baird, M. D. Balcazar, N. Bourgeois, J. A. Cardarelli, P. Hatfield, J. Kang, K. Krushelnick, S. P. D. Mangles, C. D. Murphy, N. Lu, J. Osterhoff, K. P˜ oder, P. P. Rajeev, C. P. Ridgers, S. Rozario, M. P. Selwood, A. J. Shahani, D. R. Symes, A. G. R...

    2020

  46. [46]

    S¨ oren Jalas, Manuel Kirchen, Philipp Messner, Paul Winkler, Lars H¨ ubner, Julian Dirkwinkel, Matthias Schnepp, R´ emi Lehe, and Andreas R. Maier. Bayesian optimization of a laser-plasma accelerator.Physical Review Letters, 126(10):104801, 2021

    2021

  47. [47]

    Smith, Chris Orban, John T

    Joseph R. Smith, Chris Orban, John T. Morrison, Kevin M. George, Gregory K. Ngirmang, Enam A. Chowdhury, and W. Mel Roquemore. Optimizing laser-plasma interactions for ion acceleration using particle-in-cell simulations and evolutionary algorithms.New Journal of Physics, 22(10):103067, 2020

    2020

  48. [48]

    E. J. Dolier, M. King, R. Wilson, R. J. Gray, and P. McKenna. Multi-parameter bayesian optimisation of laser-driven ion acceleration in particle-in-cell simulations.New Journal of Physics, 24(7):073025, 2022

    2022

  49. [49]

    Loughran, M

    B. Loughran, M. J. V. Streeter, H. Ahmed, S. Astbury, M. Balcazar, M. Borghesi, N. Bourgeois, et al. Automated control and optimization of laser-driven ion acceleration.High Power Laser Science and Engineering, 11:e35, 2023

    2023

  50. [50]

    Bayesian optimization of double-pulse temporal shaping for enhanced target-normal-sheath proton acceleration under fixed laser energy.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.15687, 2026

    Cheng-Qi Zhang, Yang He, Mamat Ali Bake, and Bai-Song Xie. Bayesian optimization of double-pulse temporal shaping for enhanced target-normal-sheath proton acceleration under fixed laser energy.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.15687, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  51. [51]

    Multi-objective and multi-fidelity bayesian optimization of laser-plasma acceleration.Physical Review Research, 5(1):013063, 2023

    Faran Irshad, Stefan Karsch, and Andreas D¨ opp. Multi-objective and multi-fidelity bayesian optimization of laser-plasma acceleration.Physical Review Research, 5(1):013063, 2023

    2023

  52. [52]

    Foerster, Kilian von Grafenstein, Florian Haberstroh, Elodie Travac, Niklas Weisse, Stefan Karsch, and Andreas D¨ opp

    Faran Irshad, Christoph Eberle, Florian M. Foerster, Kilian von Grafenstein, Florian Haberstroh, Elodie Travac, Niklas Weisse, Stefan Karsch, and Andreas D¨ opp. Pareto optimization and tuning of a laser wakefield accelerator.Physical Review Letters, 133(8):085001, 2024

    2024

  53. [53]

    T. D. Arber, K. Bennett, C. S. Brady, A. Lawrence-Douglas, M. G. Ramsay, N. J. Sircombe, P. Gillies, R. G. Evans, H. Schmitz, A. R. Bell, and C. P. Ridgers. Contemporary particle-in-cell approach to laser-plasma modelling.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 57(11):113001, 2015. 13

    2015

  54. [54]

    Danson, Constantin Haefner, Jake Bromage, et al

    Colin N. Danson, Constantin Haefner, Jake Bromage, et al. Petawatt and exawatt class lasers worldwide.High Power Laser Science and Engineering, 7:e54, 2019

    2019

  55. [55]

    Differentiable expected hypervolume improvement for parallel multi-objective bayesian optimization

    Samuel Daulton, Maximilian Balandat, and Eytan Bakshy. Differentiable expected hypervolume improvement for parallel multi-objective bayesian optimization. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 9851–9864, 2020

    2020

  56. [56]

    Parallel bayesian optimization of multiple noisy objectives with expected hypervolume improvement

    Samuel Daulton, Maximilian Balandat, and Eytan Bakshy. Parallel bayesian optimization of multiple noisy objectives with expected hypervolume improvement. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 2187–2200, 2021

    2021

  57. [57]

    Unexpected improvements to expected improvement for bayesian optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.20708, 2023

    Sebastian Ament, Samuel Daulton, David Eriksson, Maximilian Balandat, and Eytan Bakshy. Unexpected improvements to expected improvement for bayesian optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.20708, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    Jiang, Samuel Daulton, Benjamin Letham, Andrew Gordon Wilson, and Eytan Bakshy

    Maximilian Balandat, Brian Karrer, Daniel R. Jiang, Samuel Daulton, Benjamin Letham, Andrew Gordon Wilson, and Eytan Bakshy. BoTorch: A framework for efficient monte-carlo bayesian optimization. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 21524–21538, 2020

    2020

  59. [59]

    Spencer, K

    I. Spencer, K. W. D. Ledingham, R. P. Singhal, T. McCanny, P. McKenna, et al. Laser generation of proton beams for the production of short-lived positron emitting radioisotopes. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms, 183(3-4):449–458, 2001

    2001

  60. [60]

    D. J. Stark, L. Yin, B. J. Albright, and F. Guo. Effects of dimensionality on kinetic simulations of laser-ion acceleration in the transparency regime.Physics of Plasmas, 24(5):053103, 2017

    2017

  61. [61]

    Stefano Sinigardi, Javad Babaei, and Giorgio Turchetti. Tnsa proton maximum energy laws for 2d and 3d pic simulations.Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 909:438–440, 2018. 14

    2018